General Manager, South Central Railway vs K.ABDUL WARIS

THE Railway officials who were opposite parties in O.P. No. 185/1994 have preferred this appeal questioning the order of the Anantapur District Forum in that O.P. dated 20.12.1996. THE complainant in that O.P. is the respondent before us. THE District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties i.e. Railways, to pay him compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to him and also a sum of Rs. 500/- towards costs. This is questioned by the appellants before us.

THE facts of the case-even as admitted by the appellants-clearly establish gross deficiency in service on the part of the Railways. Admittedly the complainant took a second class ticket from Anantapur to Ahmedabad for travel on 9.5.1994 by Kurla Express and got reserved a berth in that train from Anantapur to Dadar. Berth No. 9 in Section 6 coash was allotted to him. Xerox copy of the ticket was filed by him alongwith his complaint. He stated in his complaint that in fact he took a direct ticket from Anantapur to Ahmedabad and berth reservation upto Dadar, in order to attend his research work at Consumer Education Research Centre at Ahmedabad. According to the complainant the train arrived at Anantapur Railway Station at 2.00 p.m. on 9.5.1994. He found Section 6 coach was occupied by Haj pilgrims. He and other passengers who got reservation in that compartment confronted the TT but he did not give a solution. Meanwhile the train started and he somehow squeezed himself into a general compartment. At Gooty station he alongwith the other reserved passengers confronted the TT with their problem and the TT promised them that he would provide seats to some of them at least at some other station on the way. Finally at Raichur the TT provided three seats in the general compartment and in that compartment with seating accommodation he travelled upto Sholapur. THE complainant narrates that at Sholapur, an inspector came and asked him to show the ticket and finding that he had reservation in S6 compartment, got him down from the compartment with his luggage even though he explained and remonstrated and refused to get down. THE complainant also alleged that he was beaten and thrown out with his lugage on to the platform. Humiliated beyond measure, the complainant terminated his journey at Sholapur and got an endorsement by TT on the ticket for repayment. In the complaint he stated that he spent Rs. 1,000/- extra to travel by road including boarding and lodging carrying with him bitterness and agony suffered by him. THE fact that S6 compartment was occupied by Haj pilgrims and that the passengers with reserved tickets and reserved berths in that compartment were prevented from entering the compartment and occupying their berths was not disputed by the opposite parties in their counter. THE fact that the complainant had to travel till Raichur in a general compartment without even a seat i.e. standing, and that he was provided only a seating accommodation at Raichur in a general compartment was also not disputed by the opposite parties. But the opposite parties contend that the complainant should be thankful that he was given a seat. THEy denied that he was forcibly thrown out of the train at Sholapur. No doubt the complainant had not filed any independent material to establish that he travelled by road from Sholapur except the endorsement on the ticket by the TT showing that he terminated his journey at Sholapur and that he would be eligible for refund. The District Forum, considering the admitted facts establishing gross unreasonable treatment meted to the complainant, held that the appellants were callously negligent and deficient in their service and awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with costs of Rs. 500/- inspite of the complainant claiming Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation. The complainant did not prefer an appeal. The Railways preferred the present appeal.

On the facts of the present case compensation has to be. awarded to the complainant taking a measure of the gross neglect by the Railways of its minimum responsibilities and obligations to its passenger who was given confirmed reserved berth for travel throughout the night and the ill-treatment meted to the complainant by not providing him his reserved berth in the reserved compartment and in allowing that compartment to be occupied at the starting station itself by Haj pilgrims. Haj pilgrims of course have to be provided accommodation; but that does not mean that reserved passengers should be deprived of the accommodation assured to them for a consideration. The Railways are bound to secure a reserved compartment for the reserved passengers and failure to do so tant amounts to deficiency in service. If Haj pilgrims had to be accommodated, the Railways ought to have provided additional compartment for them. This type of neglect and unconcern and callousness on the part of the Railways cannot be overlooked. We have to take this aspect also into consideration, apart from the hardship and suffering undergone by the complainant, in awarding compensation to him. In the circumstances of this case we cannot reduce the compensation to a token or nominal sum. However we find the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the District Forum to be on the high side. We reduce the compensation awarded to Rs. 10,000/-. In other respects the order of the District Forum stands. The appeal is thus partly allowed with costs. The appellants shall pay Rs. 500/- towards costs to the respondent. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs awarded by the District Forum and this Commission i.e., in all Rs. 11,000/- shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within eight weeks from today, i.e., by 11th June, 1999. Appeal partly allowed.